Strolling with a skeptical biochemist
Yet by 2050 %60 of of the world will follow Jesus and Mo.
We can only hope. It's a great comic, deserving of a wide audience.
Ba dum bum <swish>
That's an interesting point, since at best only the followers of Jesus or the followers of Mo can be right. Even if there is a biblical god, followers of Jesus say Jesus was the son of god and came to die for our sins and the only way to heaven is through him. And that Mo is an illiterate middle eastern warlord whose musings that he is the final, perfect prophet of god were just delusional. The followers of Mo think Jesus was a wise prophet but definitely not the son of god and all that "the only way to god is through me" stuff is total nonsense. Mo brought the final, perfect message of god that all humanity will some day follow. Then he flew off to heaven on a flying horse.These two sets of claims are mutually exclusive, so only one of them is right (assuming the biblical god is real), and followers of the wrong one are deluded and are going to suffer torment in hell for eternity.More likely, they are both just wrong.
If true, of those 60%, 98% of them will choose their religious beliefs with the sane amount of thought they put into choosing their native language.
I think that number is well above 98%. Probably 99.999%.
Interesting to note is the way Steve but also mr. Byers are always claiming 'they' are (or will be) the majority. Or in case of Mr. Byers, currently the silent minority. As if numbers/ popularity matters if science/ evolution is true or not. But, nasty little facts once again show, Jerry Coyne's book is far more popular then Meyers. Thus, it proves once again, what ID claims, isn't always the truth.'They' must always be winning, like mrs. Gauger and all ID-ers claim.It doesn't really matter that they are winning, they must present it like 'they are' or will be soon in the near future. Because if it seems you're winning, you must be popular, you get a larger fanclub.
Americans may remember in 2012 when Fox News kept pushing "de-skewed" poll results proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that Barack Obama would lose reelection!Why would they lie about that?
Jesus and Mo?
Beau might be alluding to the projection that Muslims and Christians, combined, will make up 60% of the population by that year:http://www.pewforum.org/2015/04/02/religious-projections-2010-2050/Christians don't follow Mo, so he's a bit confused on that point, but what else is new? As to what point of the cartoon he thinks this addresses, you'll have to ask him. My mind doesn't work like his, thankfully.
I'm assuming Mo is Mohammed. I'm also thankful our minds don't work the same Lute. Here's the cold hard truth for you. I'll grant you, for the sake of argument, that God doesn't exist. Here's reality though, His believers certainly exist and majority rules. Love it or hate it .
You absolutely must visit IS, Beau. You'll love the way the majority rules there. You'll also learn the difference between "Jesus and Mo" and "either Jesus or Mo".
Wow, that's an interesting comment. "We may be wrong, but we're going to overwhelm you unbelievers anyway." And I guess that's what counts, right? Figuring out what is right is obviously a secondary concern.
"Many religions now come before us with ingratiating smirks and outspread hands, like an unctuous merchant in a bazaar. They offer consolation and solidarity and uplift, competing as they do in a marketplace. But we have a right to remember how barbarically they behaved when they were strong and were making an offer that people could not refuse.” ― Christopher Hitchens
Alex, I'm not saying i agree with the above scenario I just think it will happen. Another possibility is Christians and Muslims destroy each other and you live happily ever after. I think we can agree that the friction between atheists and believers will at some point lead to one group being muzzled.
I think we can agree that the friction between atheists and believers will at some point lead to one group being muzzledWhy would that be? I hope that future generations will just discard religion as the unreasonable and useless doctrine it is. No one can claim intellectual victory by muzzling the opponent. Question is, who has a history of muzzling dissenters? It's certainly not us Beau
Dazz, depends where you live I guess.
I think we can agree that the friction between atheists and believers will at some point lead to one group being muzzled.No, I wouldn't agree with that at all. Thought it's again revealing that you see that as the only way your side would win, by muzzling non-believers. I guess simply persuading them with stronger arguments is out of the question, huh?
Beau, depends where you live I guessI guess we could argue if some of the "anti-theist" regimes you may have in mind where actually representative of atheism at all, but I don't want to fall for the classic "they were not true atheists" motto.Instead I'll ask you, can you think of a single place on earth that was never plagued with religious fundamentalism leading to human sacrifices in the form of wars against rival religions?
Nope and that's why i made the above statement. History repeats itself.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Fine, that's why the only way out is to get rid of religion. Welcome aboard Beau
Steve, I did all that before I found God. I would've never let somebody talk to me they way you gentlemen talk to people. There's no winning with your guys you just like to argue. If I defend Christians historically you'll say I'm deluded. If I tell you the truth on what's happened historically you say I'm a blood thirsty goon. Either way I'm wrong and deluded, that's why we can't coexist. I shall remain silent from here you'd probably love to murder me and eat me just like your running mate Jeffrey Dahmer.
"There's no winning with your guys you just like to argue."Beau, is "winning" all that matters to you? What is it that you want to win, absolute power and authority? Did 'finding God' make you feel that you're special, therefor you have the 'God given right' to 'win', and to rule over other people and everything else? "...you'd probably love to murder me and eat me just like your running mate Jeffrey Dahmer."So what do you think about all of the stuff in the bible about eating yeshoo's flesh and drinking his blood? And how about the animal and human sacrifices (killings)? And the stonings? And the plagues? And the killing of every living thing on Earth in 'the flood' except for what was on the 'ark'? And the dashing of babies against rocks? And the slaughter or every man, woman, child, and animal in communities that 'God' was pissed at because some of the people didn't kiss his ass? And how about all the other atrocities in the bible (whether they actually occurred or not) and the atrocities that are known to have occurred and still occur 'in the name of' your chosen, so-called 'God' and/or other so-called 'Gods'? Anyone who believes in, worships, and promotes yahoo-yeshoo-holy-ghost-allah-mohammed or any other so-called 'God' or 'prophet' or 'messiah' or whatever that is anything like the so-called 'Abrahamic God' and other horrible religious characters has NO room to bitch about and condemn ANYONE else, no matter what they do.
TWT, Finding God gave me accountability. I can't condemn anyone I'm not God. I'm just stating what i believe could happen in the future.
But Beau:"I can't condemn anyone I'm not God. "and your other quote:" I shall remain silent from here you'd probably love to murder me and eat me just like your running mate Jeffrey Dahmer. "Are contradictions...
"TWT, Finding God gave me accountability. "You didn't have accountability before you 'found god'?Yikes!
Ed I was suggesting i wouldn't interact with Steve anymore after he hit me with overreaction stick. Thanks for your concern though. Have a good night
Chris, indeed Yikes! Not that I expect Beau to go in that direction, but 'God gave me accountability' is only a few steps away from 'only accountable by God'. This 'only accountable by God' is what drives IS and groups like WBC and KKK.
Ed I was suggesting i wouldn't interact with Steve anymore after he hit me with overreaction stick.I don't blame you. Imagine, someone saying something as over the top as this: "(Y)ou'd probably love to murder me and eat me just like your running mate Jeffrey Dahmer." Oh, wait. That wasn't Steve, was it?
Blech, christians are just too tough and gamey and it takes days of marinading to get the stench of hypocrisy and self-righteousness out of them.I prefer pan-fried baby with a side of fava beans accompanied by a nice Chianti.Did you know that Jeffery Dahmer converted to xtianity while in prision ? He was baptized by Wisconsin minister Roy Ratcliff who is convinced that Dahmers conversion was sincere.So presumably Dahmer is now sitting by the right hand of god enjoying an eternity of bliss, unlike many of his victims, most of who were gay and were murdered by Dahmer just after engaging in sex with him and are presumably suffering eternal torment in hell.Go figure.
Do what you always do: resort to mocking because you lack evidence.
Science is a verb and not a noun. the cartoon is wrong and so boring intellectually.Its people who figure things out. if it was science then it would not be lagging in new discoveries and SCIENCE would get Nobel prizes and not the actual humans.Since its people, tailless primates for evolutionists viewers, who do the figuring then one should figure they can make mistakes and mistakes in how long it takes them to correct them.There are quality control issues with the humans. Saying its science will not hide this.Prove your case boys.For example. Evolutionists should provide biological scientific evidence for a biological hypothesis/theory claim.Never seen it yet.!! Just like it would be is there was none.!
"Science is a verb and not a noun. Its people who figure things out. if it was science then it would not be lagging in new discoveries and SCIENCE would get Nobel prizes and not the actual humans."That's like saying football is a verb and not a noun.
Nope or yup. The analogy misses me. (Like many footballs did).Science is not a thing to hold on to. there is no such thing as science in fact.Ay best SCIENCE can say its a high standard of investigation that can demand confidence in its conclusions.Its a claim to a higher/better methodology and so a claim to greater accuracy in conclusions.its not a collection of data or conclusions.Its just method.i recently read roger bacons writings on science and he makes this point too. He lived in the age of Knights and dragions. !200. Its not a new idea and by the way I see many science writers say science is a verb and not a noun.It is treated like a noun. a particular thing unique in human intellectual thought.its very strange to see this.
"its not a collection of data or conclusions.Its just method."Science is why you are sitting there typing into your computer. And most likely why you draw breath now rather than dying of disease or starvation years ago. Science did that for you. By your own definition, religion is a verb and not a noun. What has religionizing done for us?
Your just wrong. its not science. its particular people with ideas that possibly uses the scientific method to make conclusions. Its not SCIENCE that did anyone anything.its not a methodology that invented/discovered anything. its just a tool, if that, for thinking dreaming people about nature and using it.The computer keyboard is just a tool for the typist. its the person that is the creator.Why fight this ?
From lighting to origins of species, science provides a materialistic explanation for nearly everythingI find this statement hilarious actually because usually for 1 scientific explanation, 100 new ones arise. For example, when Darwin published the origin of species, everything seemed easy maybe with the exception of origins of life, that God did it. Over 150 years later, none of that is easy, quite to the contrary. I easily find 20 issues that science has not been able to resolve and probably never will.
So you're saying you would like to go back to the time when every explanation was simple, obvious, and wrong?
"I find this statement hilarious actually because usually for 1 scientific explanation, 100 new ones arise."Good science raises more questions than it answers."For example, when Darwin published the origin of species, everything seemed easy maybe with the exception of origins of life, that God did it. "That's a easy explanation, just no evidence to support it. Fortunately many people want better explanations than godidit, to the great benefit of human society."Over 150 years later, none of that is easy, quite to the contrary. I easily find 20 issues that science has not been able to resolve and probably never will. "And many thousands of issues that science has resolved. While 'godidit' has resolved exactly zero.
"So you're saying you would like to go back to the time when every explanation was simple, obvious, and wrong?"Ah, the good old days, John.